Reductions in Postal Service

In recent weeks The Times has published articles about cutbacks and reductions in mail service. Perhaps a review of U.S. postal history will explain why the Postal Service should be removed from the federal budget.

The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 was a reform fueled by years of congressional control of postal funding levels and capital expenditures--political meddling that produced an antiquated, underfunded postal system. Under reorganization, the U.S. Postal Service was established as a financially self-sufficient enterprise, mandated to operate on a break-even basis.

In accordance with its mandate to operate like a business, the Postal Service was removed from the federal budget in fiscal year 1974. And “off budget” is where it remained until 1985, when then-Office of Management and Budget Director David Stockman pulled it back into the federal budget so that the service’s periodic surpluses could be used to create the illusion that the enormous Reagan deficits were lessened.

The Reagan Administration’s “privatization” proposals have never won broad-based support from the American public or from Congress. Nevertheless, the Reaganites are determined to launch some privatization initiatives before their term of office expires. They have made the federal budget process their vehicle.

OMB Director James Miller III apparently feels that if he can’t promote privatization on its merits, he will attempt to implement it through the back door. He recently succeeded in having Administration allies on Capitol Hill push through $1.245 billion in Postal Service budget cuts.

Cuts in postal services and construction do nothing to reduce the federal deficit. Why? Because, postal income comes from postage revenues, not from the federal treasury.

When you force the Postal Service to make the sort of cuts this Administration engineered, you force it to reduce service to the public. That’s precisely what the right wing has in mind. They hope the public will become dissatisfied with the Postal Service and the atmosphere will then be ripe for wholesale privatization.

Which functions of government are fundamentally governmental in nature? Why not contract out defense to a mercenary army? The truth is that the prominent critics of the Postal Service have an anti-public service philosophy.

MOE BILLER

President

American Postal Workers Union

Washington, D.C.